Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:04:44 -0500

Just curious what the thinking is behind this statement in the charter:

"The working group may also reuse elements of RFC 4114, if possible." 

This subject was discussed at the last BOF and received little support
(if any at all).  So while 4114 certainly need not be ruled out as an
option, singling it out for inclusion the charter of the WG seems (1)
un-necessary, (2) somewhat inappropriate detail for a charter because it
suggests a partial *solution* when the charter is designed to define
just the scope of the *problem(s)* to be analyzed and solved by the WG,
and (3) possibly contradictory to a general opinion expressed at the
last BOF.  So it seems that the charter would not be harmed by removing
this statement, but would be improved by removing it.

Thank you for considering this.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

Send PEPPERMINT mailing list submissions to
	[email-masked]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	[email-masked]

You can reach the person managing the list at
	[email-masked]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of PEPPERMINT digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1.  Proposed charter V3 (Richard Shockey)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:28:39 -0500
From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [PEPPERMINT] Proposed charter V3
To: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <017201c87000$964d7a30$c2e86e90$@us>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

Comments and flames always welcome.

PROPOSED CHARTER FOR PEPPERMINT

The IETF has been working on various aspects of session-based Multimedia
Interconnection among administrative domains. In addition, the IETF has
done significant work on data exchanges among various network elements. 

ENUM is specifically chartered to develop protocols that involve the
translation of E.164 numbers to URI's.
 
SPEERMINT has been chartered to develop best current practices among
real-time application service providers and how such services
interconnect across administrative boundaries.

The PEPPERMINT work group is chartered to define what data needs to be
exchanged among Multimedia administrative domains, and how that data
should be structured provisioned and propagated. These protocols would
be outside the normal scope of establishing various forms of a SIP
session. These administrative domains are of any practical size and
could be service providers or enterprise SIP proxy's, such as PBX's.

Data exchanges to facilitate session-based Multimedia Interconnection
are typically between various Client User Agents and Registries or
bilateral or multilateral Registry to Registry.  Data exchanges could
include bulk data as well as real time updates. Typical data include
mappings of phone numbers to URIs, policies surrounding admission to
various points of network interconnection and various types of trunk
data.  In addition, there is a specific need for redistribution of such
Registry data to various types of network databases.  

The working group will draw upon expert advice and ongoing consultation
from the ENUM, SPEERMINT and PROVREG working groups. The working group
may also reuse elements of RFC 4114, if possible.

The final work product(s) from this working group will utilize and be
based on XML documents and XML document exchanges.

PROPOSED GOALS AND MILESTONES

Requirements for Interconnection data exchanges.         Sept 08 

Provisioning of Interconnection data registries.         Nov 08

Provisioning of Interconnection data caches.             Feb 09 

Richard Shockey
Director, Member of the Technical Staff
NeuStar
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166 PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651
PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 <mailto:richard(at)shockey.us>
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

End of PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint

---

From: "Richard Shockey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:01:34 -0500

4114 comprises many things, both data objects as well as transport protocols
EPP etc.

Elements might just be parts of 4114 like the XML objects etc .. and the
word MAY is just that _maybe_.

IETF likes to reuse things if possible,  but your point is well taken and
review of the charter would be the first order of business in Philadelphia.

Frankly I would not have any personal objections to removing the sentence.
Something we might hum on.

Your comment, in any event, is most welcome. 

>  On Behalf Of Cartwright, Kenneth
>  Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 4:05 PM
>  To: [email-masked]
>  Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17
>

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:12:55 -0500

> this statement, but would be improved by removing it.

First, I'm not sure about your first point regarding "little  
support".  While I was not in attendance, I did listen in via audio  
(and even made a few statements via Jabber).  I do not remember any  
solution path having support over others.  I was under the impression  
that the available solution paths were being explored, and the  
feedback being sought was about the necessary level of desire to solve  
the problem through any of the solutions available.  Again, I was not  
there, so I could be wrong.

Second, I think leaving the wording around 4114 in the text is a good  
idea.  Given that EPP and 4114 solve some aspects of this problem, it  
is reasonable for the IETF to ask why you/we are asking for a working  
group to solve the same problem and why 4114 cannot be re-used.

-andy

---

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:50:26 -0500

Hi Andy,

On the first point, I was there and listening intently and participating
as was appropriate, and the impression I came away with was the one I
communicated.  But obviously, this was my impression, certainly not a
formal position of the BOF.

On the second point, the WG has not even fully agreed on the scope or
nature of the problem, so putting what could be part of the solution in
the charter is premature, imho.  Furthermore, the charter should not
suggest the solution, imho.  The charter should identify the broad scope
of the problem and leave the rest (e.g. the specific definition of the
problem(s) and the corresponding solutions) up to the WG, imho.
 
Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:13 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

> un-necessary, (2) somewhat inappropriate detail for a charter because 
> it suggests a partial *solution* when the charter is designed to 
> define just the scope of the *problem(s)* to be analyzed and solved by

> the WG, and (3) possibly contradictory to a general opinion expressed 
> at the last BOF.  So it seems that the charter would not be harmed by 
> removing this statement, but would be improved by removing it.

First, I'm not sure about your first point regarding "little support".
While I was not in attendance, I did listen in via audio (and even made
a few statements via Jabber).  I do not remember any solution path
having support over others.  I was under the impression that the
available solution paths were being explored, and the feedback being
sought was about the necessary level of desire to solve the problem
through any of the solutions available.  Again, I was not there, so I
could be wrong.

Second, I think leaving the wording around 4114 in the text is a good
idea.  Given that EPP and 4114 solve some aspects of this problem, it is
reasonable for the IETF to ask why you/we are asking for a working group
to solve the same problem and why 4114 cannot be re-used.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:01:48 -0500

> formal position of the BOF.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point, especially since it might  
be inconsequential.

> suggest the solution, imho.

I do not believe the text of the charter is saying that 4114 MUST be  
used.  It is simply pointing at a specification that already addresses  
this space, and says a potential working group MAY use PARTS of 4114.

>  The charter should identify the broad scope

I disagree. Some working group charters do specifically carve out  
scope to better focus participants.  I think that would be appropriate  
here.  I'd even be in favor further limiting the solution space beyond  
the XML limitation, such as saying that it will be an XML/REST solution.

-andy

---

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:41:01 -0500

Hi Andy,
 
 1)  Ok.  We'll agree to disagree.
 2)  I did not say that it said that we MUST use 4114.  You are correct,
it certainly does not say that.
 3)  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree again.  Proposing a
possible and partial solution before the problem has even been defined
is not the best approach, imho.  Your proposal to add REST into the list
of possible partial solutions further bolsters my point.  It is not good
to start listing possible partial solutions in the charter before the
problem has been clearly defined.  Where do you stop adding items to the
list and how do you know that REST is good (or the best approach) for
the problem(s) to be solved?  Should SSL, HTTP, TCP, Zone Files, HTTP
Digest, WSDL, SOAP, etc, etc all be added into the list?  I think not.
It's best to leave that to the WG, imho.

But we've beaten this to death now and we may have to agree to disagree.
:-)

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 3:02 PM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

On Feb 25, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Cartwright, Kenneth wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> On the first point, I was there and listening intently and 
> participating as was appropriate, and the impression I came away with 
> was the one I communicated.  But obviously, this was my impression, 
> certainly not a formal position of the BOF.

Let's just agree to disagree on this point, especially since it might be
inconsequential.

> nature of the problem, so putting what could be part of the solution 
> in the charter is premature, imho.  Furthermore, the charter should 
> not suggest the solution, imho.

>  The charter should identify the broad scope of the problem and leave 
> the rest (e.g. the specific definition of the

I disagree. Some working group charters do specifically carve out scope
to better focus participants.  I think that would be appropriate here.
I'd even be in favor further limiting the solution space beyond the XML
limitation, such as saying that it will be an XML/REST solution.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:13:52 -0500

On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Cartwright, Kenneth wrote:

> Should SSL, HTTP, TCP, Zone Files, HTTP
> Digest, WSDL, SOAP, etc, etc all be added into the list?

Zone files and WSDL?  If the scope of the problem is so unknown that  
the net has to be cast that wide, I do not think the IETF should  
charter such a working group.

-andy

---

From: "Cartwright, Kenneth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:38:32 -0500

Andy, one of the docs up for consideration at the BOF in Vancouver in
fact spoke to the use of zone files (and I'm not saying that that was
necessarily the right approach).  This is indicative of the point that
I'm making that the specifics of the problem(s) to be addressed by the
WG have not yet been defined by the group in a requirements doc.  So,
should a partial list of possible RFCs and technologies that should
underlie the solution(s) be pre-determined in the charter?  I do not
think so.  That's all.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Cartwright, Kenneth
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PEPPERMINT] PEPPERMINT Digest, Vol 8, Issue 17

On Feb 25, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Cartwright, Kenneth wrote:

> Should SSL, HTTP, TCP, Zone Files, HTTP Digest, WSDL, SOAP, etc, etc 
> all be added into the list?

Zone files and WSDL?  If the scope of the problem is so unknown that the
net has to be cast that wide, I do not think the IETF should charter
such a working group.

-andy